1984 PLP (C (PLC)

4. We have heard the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the appellant was posted to District Jail, Jhelum as Deputy Superintendent. Jail on 1st April, 1983, the Jail had been passing through abnormal conditions. The appellant controlled the situation at the risk of his life and brought complete normalcy in the Jail. Ch. Ghulam Haider was posted to District Jail, Jhelum as Superin tendent, Jail on 18th April, 1983 i. e. 17 days after the appellant. This Superintendent of Jail started running Jail administration in his own way, according to his free will, without taking the appellant into confidence which resulted in deterioration in the administration of Jail. On this the appellant felt scared and as a precautionary measure, brought to the notice of the aforesaid Superintendent, Jail, his weak points, endangering the security of the prisoners, through reports made in the Report Book. This incurred the displeasure of the Superintendent, Jail. He reported some frivolous allegations against the appellant to the Inspector‑General of Prisons, to get rid of the appellant. This consequently led to issuance of a charge‑sheet to the appellant and appointment of Ch. Muhammad Hamid Asghar, A. I.‑G. (Prions) as a regular Enquiry Officer. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that this Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in a proper manner, completely ignored the complaints of the appellant against Ch. Ghulam Haider, Superintendent, Jail, Jhelum. It has also been pointed out by him that the Enquiry Officer, Ch. Muhammad Hamid Asghar, had not only worked with Ch. Ghulam Haider (Superintendent, Jail, Jhelum) as his Deputy Superinten dent, Jail but was a fast friend of his. This hard fact was in the know ledge of Respondent No. 1 who appointed him the Enquiry Officer. The appellant had also made a request to the Inspector‑General, Prisons, Punjab that impartial and fair enquiry was not possible as long as Ch. Ghulam Haider 'remained as Superintendent, Jail, District Jail, Jhelum. In spite of this request of the appellant, Ch. Ghulam Haider was not transferred. During the enquiry Ch. Ghulam Haider was not only allowed to sit with the enquiry officer but was also allowed to cross‑examine his own prosecution witnesses in a manner to coerce them to make submissions/ give evidence according to his wishes. Thus, the enquiry conducted against the appellant is false, extreme detriment to the appellant and he has been seriously prejudiced.

5. Other legal objections have also been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has not been supplied with a copy of the enquiry report, no show‑cause notice was issued to the appellant by respondent No. 1 and the appellant has been condemned unheard and the principle of "audi alteram partem" has been violated. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that in view of his submission the impugned orders be set aside being nullity in the eyes of the law.

6. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant submitting that the objections of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding appointment of the regular Enquiry Officer and about the conduct of this Enquiry Officer are misconceived and uncalled for. The perusal of the enquiry report, reveals that the enquiry is fair, independent one, and had been conducted in an honest manner. The Enquiry Officer has not even spared Ch. Ghulam Haider, the Superintendent, Jail, Jhelum in his enquiry report and has passed remarks against him as well. The appellant was alleged guilty of ten charges in the charge‑sheet but the Enquiry Officer has proved only six charges against the appellant by dropping 4 charges against him. This shows the honesty of the Enquiry Officer and fairness of the enquiry.

7. The learned District Attorney has also rebutted the legal objections put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant in para. 5 above. It has been submitted by him that the appellant fully participated in the enquiry, was allowed to cross‑question the witnesses. Thus, the enquiry was held with the full participation and knowledge of the appellant. It has also been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that it is also wrong to say that the appellant has been condemned unheard. He was heard in person as per rules by the Inspector‑General Prisons, Punjab, Lahore, Thus, before punishing the appellant, all the formalities as required under the Punjab Prisons Executive Staff (E & D) Rules 1982, were duly complied with and the appellant has not been prejudiced.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the entire record of this case very carefully. We have perused the enquiry report conducted by Ch. Muhammad Hamid Asghar, A. I. the regular Enquiry Officer. We find that the enquiry is complete in all respects. The appellant was given opportunities to cross‑question the witnesses and he was given due chance to defend himself. The perusal of the enquiry report also shows that the Enquiry Officer had dropped four charges against the appellant which could not be proved in the enquiry. The Enquiry Report also makes it clear that the Enquiry Officer even did not spare Ch. Ghulam Haider, Superintendent, Jail, Jhelum and has passed the following remarks against the said officer as well, in his enquiry report which is reproduced as below ;‑ "Charge No. 1‑‑This charge can be split in two parts. Part one relates to futile attempt of the Deputy Superintendent (accused officer) to induce Ch. Ghulam Haider, Superintendent, Jail, to indulge in malpractices and Part 11 deals with unauthorised beating of condemned prisoners by the accused, against the orders of the Superintendent, Jail, and misappropriation of their unlawful belong ings. Part I is a queer type of allegation. In addition to the complaint Ch. Ghulam Haider, only one witness namely Sheikh Muhammad Arshad, Jail Contractor, gave a lukewarm statement, which can be interpreted on both sides. During the cross‑examination P. W. Ch. Ghulam Haider admitted that the accused first tried to pursuade him to corruption in his office and for the second time during the dinner which the accused had boasted in honour of Ch. Ghulam Haider, at the residence of ‑the accused. This clinches the matter in favour of the accused. After first futile attempt on the part of the accused to corrupt his boss, the latter should not have, in all fair ness accepted and enjoyed the hospitality ofthe accused who was prone to try his luck again and again till the P. W. succumbed to his impious wishes. This part of the charge is, therefore, not fully proved against the accused." Thug we have no hesitation in declaring that the enquiry has been conducted in independent, honest, proper and fair manner. Hence, there is no lacuna in the enquiry report.

9. As regards other legal objections raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are in agreement with the learned District Attorney that the appellant has been associated throughout in the regular enquiry and was allowed to cross‑question the witnesses. Thus, it is wrong to say on the part of the appellant that he has been prejudiced in the matter. The appellant was also heard in person on 3rd August, 1983, by the competent authority i. e. Inspector‑General, Prisons, Punjab, Lahore as required under rule 6 (4) of the Punjab, Prisons Executive Staff (E & D) Rules, 1982. Thus, it is clear the appellant was not condemned unheard. We have no hesitation to conclude that the appellant has been proceeded properly under the relevant Punjab Prisons Executive Staff (E & D) Rules, 1982, and he was also afforded full opportunities to defend himself.

10. We have taken pains to go through the formal enquiry report against the appellant conducted by Ch. M. Hamid Asghar, A. 1.‑G. (Prisons). Out of 10 charges, six charges (five full and one partly) have been duly proved against the appellant. Thus. the appellant has been rightly punished by the competent authority as he was found guilty of misconduct, involving financial irregularities and other malpractices.

11. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There are no orders as to costs. M. I. Appeal dismissed.